Debates of March 27th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

In principle. I recognize the principle of effective representation, which is the principle we are striving for as set out in section 19 of the act. Coincidentally it is the principle enunciated by the Supreme Court of Canada in its decision with respect to redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan, where the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster resides and which he knows quite a lot about I suspect. The principle demands that in determining effective representation one looks at more than the number of electors residing in a particular geographic area.

We looked at this. We looked at Canada as a whole. We looked at the maps and we heard from members of Parliament from across the country who came to the committee and expressed their views on what effective representation meant. They told us about the problems they have in representing electors in some of the remote ridings.

Strangely, the hon. member for Labrador did not come. Yet it is one of the ridings that has been accepted for some time as a separate riding under the current redistribution rules. He did not come to complain to the committee that he had grave difficulty in representing his riding. Some of us know some of the problems he has.

The hon. member for Nunatsiaq who has over one million square kilometres in his riding-one-third of the country is in his constituency-did not come to the committee to complain about the problems he faces. However, there is not much he can do. He has a small population but they are scattered over an area that would make most of us blush-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Tell the whole story.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I am telling the whole story. He has a special case. He had a special riding created. The Northwest Territories is assigned two ridings under the Constitution. It will keep those two. They are going to be small for awhile. Some day maybe they will not be, but for the moment they are small.

Looking at the rest of the country we have tremendous diversity. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster in his speech mentioned British Columbia. There are significant differences in population in ridings in British Columbia. I do not think there were any in the last proposals put forward by the commission that were exceptions in that province. There may have been one before but I do not think so. I do not think there was in 1987 either. Yet still there is a fair variation.

The commissions in the province of Saskatchewan drew the boundaries very close to the limit. They stayed very close to it so there is not a big discrepancy. I congratulate the commissions on their work. However, in some provinces it is hard to do that. In some it is harder than in others. The size of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec, for example, has resulted in a difference of view as to whether we should have a 15 per cent limit or a 25 per cent limit in variation. The bill proposed 25; the hon. member in his amendment is proposing 15.

I suggest that his doom and gloom scenario, his suggestion that "voter equity would be almost meaningless" is not correct. Under the previous law where 25 per cent was the variation, in 1987 there were five constituencies in all of Canada that were beyond the 25 per cent limit, either above or below. One was above, four were below. That is five constituencies out of 295. It is not something that renders voter equity almost meaningless, as suggested by the hon. member.

In the 1994 redistribution proposals that the commissions completed that the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster says were so unpopular with Liberal members and I say were unpopular in large part with his own-he does not like to talk about that-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

No. How many appeared before the committee?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No, he says. Yes, I say to him. He knows perfectly well that many of his members were quite unhappy, almost weepy at the proposals that were put forward by the-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Now I hear them laughing because they do not like to think of them weeping, but a few months ago it was not quite that way.

The fact is there were two ridings in all the 1994 proposals that were above or below the 25 per cent quotient.

This is not a case of rendering voter equity almost meaningless. For the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster to engage in that kind of rhetoric is not something I would expect of him. I am sure he did not really mean what he said.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

You were arguing the same thing in committee.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No. I want to turn to the words of the act itself because I think this is important. I do not normally like to read statutes in the House because it is pretty tedious.

I would like to quote from the old Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act that dealt with the power of commissions to go beyond the 25 per cent rule. It stated as follows:

The commission may depart from the strict application of the rules set out in paragraph 1(a) and (b) in any case where:

(a) special geographic-

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Dispense.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I want the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster to hear this because he said this is bad.

It stated:

(a) special geographic considerations, including in particular the sparsity or density of the population of various regions of the province, the accessibility of those regions or the size or shape thereof, appear to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable, or

(b) any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to the commission to render such a departure necessary or desirable,

In other words, those were the tests that the commissions appointed in 1993, and that rendered their reports late last year, had as their guideline.

I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to compare those words with the words in clause 19(3), which the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster says will render voter equity almost meaningless. In 19(3) it states:

A commission may depart from the application of the rule set out in paragraph 2(a) in circumstances that are viewed by the commission as being extraordinary because a part of a province, the population of which is less than 75 per cent of the electoral quota for the province calculated in the manner described in subparagraph 2(a)(i) or (ii), is geographically isolated from the rest of the province or is not readily accessible from the rest of the province.

In other words, the test is narrowed. It is not widened, it is narrowed. It is harder to get a special riding under the new rules. It must meet one of two tests. The old rule allowed the shape, the density or sparsity of population and all kinds of different things to enter into it. That is no longer a consideration. Accessibility is now the test. There are two tests: geographically isolated from the rest of the province or not readily accessible from the rest of the province.

We have narrowed the test. The hon. member is still complaining that voter equity is rendered almost meaningless by this test. I suggest to him that he should re-read the old act, read the new bill, and he would conclude, as I do, that his amendment is not well-founded. He should leave those words in the new bill and support this change. It is a good change and one that will result in the basic principle for which we are all striving, that is, effective representation.

[The Speaker]

I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

Earlier today the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands raised a point of order. It was before question period. It was on the procedural acceptability of Motion 4 in the name of the hon. member for Bellechasse. He argued that the motion went beyond the scope of clause 16.

I have now had the opportunity to review the arguments made earlier this day by both hon. members and I do thank them for their interventions and their arguments.

The Chair has no difficulty in finding the amendment relevant to the clause and the bill since the concept of the formula of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, is clearly introduced in the said clause. Furthermore, it is the opinion of the Chair that the amendment does not seek to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, but rather it seeks to add a supplementary consideration for the Chief Electoral Officer in the determination that he must make pursuant to clause 16.

For those reasons I will allow the amendment to go forward.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Since the Speaker has now ruled on this matter, we can now deal with Motion No. 4. Someone could move that all the amendments be grouped together for debate.

The hon. member for Bellechasse, on a point of order.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an indication from the Chair as to how we will debate the motions.

Since Motion No. 4, which is under my name and which is seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is of a different nature than those which relate to a variation of 15 per cent or to the deletion of special clauses, would it not be appropriate to debate them one after the other, and to vote on them separately?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I thank the hon. member. Many members have already told me that these motions do not belong to the same group. We continue with the group which includes Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, and 7. Then, we will deal with the other group. Has the parliamentary secretary concluded his remarks?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

No, Mr. Speaker. Do I have any time left?

[The Deputy Speaker]

The time allocated to the hon. member has expired.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-69, and particularly on the amendments proposed by the Reform Party. I will start by making some comments on the speech of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

It goes without saying that, when the member for Kingston and the Islands rises in this House to support the Bloc Quebecois, it gives him additional credibility.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

This also reflects the open-mindedness of the Liberal member. I do hope that this expression of intelligence will have a positive effect on his colleagues, but I doubt it. As my grandmother used to say, we have our work cut out.

I support the views expressed by the hon. member for Bellechasse and I reject the amendments proposed by the Reform Party concerning the application of the 15 per cent rule. According to the arguments put forward by the Reform Party, we would not have to conduct an in-depth review of electoral boundaries and it would probably be a simple matter of feeding some formula into a computer which, in a matter of minutes, would come up with a new riding and a new electoral map for the whole country.

It seems to me that the review of electoral boundaries should be a more fundamental and serious exercise than that. Provisions in the bill that would allow a difference of 25 per cent would seem to be entirely justified under the circumstances, for very obvious reasons, especially when we are talking about so-called rural areas, and this applies to many of our Reform Party friends and in fact, to most members in this House. It seems to me that commonality of interests should take precedence over nearly all the criteria that are considered when it is time to review electoral boundaries.

To represent a riding is not just a matter of being here in Ottawa a few days a week to listen to the arguments of other members. It is about considering the interests of our respective communities and making them known to the federal administration, in this case, and it is also a way for us to play a leading role and act as a catalyst in our communities. In other words, commonality of interests is essential.

When I look at my own riding, I remember the readjustment that had been proposed in the now defunct Bill C-18. It would have created a situation that people in the area would have considered absurd. I had an opportunity to make this point during the debate on Bill C-18. My riding was turned upside down. Overnight, communities were grouped with other communities, and one example was the MRC du Granite, whose main city is Lac Mégantic, which all of a sudden found itself in the same riding as Thetford Mines. Now the people of Thetford Mines are all very nice, and its business people are very friendly, including the member for the area and my colleague, Mr. Chrétien.

However, the two communities have very little in common since they did not evolve the same way and do not have the same interests. Geographically, they are next door to each other. On the electoral map, we see that the asbestos area is next door to the Granite region. However, when we consider the background of these communities, including their economy, their educational facilities, where their children go to continue their education, their cultural facilities, we realize that these two communities are not developing the same way and do not have the same geography.

These aspects should be considered when the time comes to revise electoral boundaries. We must consider commonality of interests and the numbers rule should be subordinate to this principle. We need a degree of flexibility that will let us consider commonality of interests. It seems to me that the 25 per cent rule allows for a certain degree of accommodation that encourages compliance with this rule. That is why it is quite natural that the Bloc Quebecois should reject the amendments proposed by our Reform Party colleagues and is in favour of maintaining the 25 per cent rule.

I may add, and I am nearing the end of my speech, that we need provisions in this bill that will allow for setting up so-called special electoral districts, in other words, districts that may be under 25 per cent. We gave certain examples. I remember the case of the Magdalen Islands, which for many years, from 1947 to 1968, had been an autonomous electoral district. From 1867 to 1946, the riding was joined to Gaspé and now, since 1968, it is part of the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la- Madeleine. This is a case in point, when we consider the very special character of the Magdalen Islands. There are of course other examples that were raised by other colleagues in this House. So again, those were the reasons why we should maintain the 25 per cent rule.

[Jay Hill, Reform, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset of my remarks that I was not prepared to speak today, but after listening to some of the

comments from my hon. colleagues I was impelled to rise and add my two cents worth to the discussion.

I would like to correct the record concerning some comments attributed to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. He mentioned that the Reformers were disappointed although we opposed Bill C-18 a year ago and I think the phrase he used was that we were weepy about some of the proposed changes. He implied that although we opposed the bill, we actually were not disappointed when it passed and the existing electoral boundaries commissions were subsequently disbanded.

I would like to say for the record that yes, we had some legitimate concerns about the proposed changes. However, we felt and still feel that those concerns could have been adequately addressed through the appropriate process that was in place at the time.

We saw no need to suspend the existing provincial electoral boundaries commissions. We felt that elected representatives in this House should not have any priority over the concerns of the average citizen and that we should make our case either orally in front of the commissions when they travelled around the various provinces or through an appropriate paper trail.

Speaking for myself, I took leave of that opportunity and presented myself to the electoral boundaries commission for British Columbia in Prince George on June 2. I made my case against the proposed changes that it had communicated.

I am pleased to represent one of the larger ridings in British Columbia. It encompasses about 212,000 square kilometres. As we have heard today from a number of members, some rural ridings are very difficult to represent. It is very difficult to get around to all the various areas in one's riding.

I certainly consider my riding one of the more difficult ones in the country to get around. It is the only riding that straddles the Rocky Mountains. Some 60 per cent of the population of my riding is on the Peace River side on the east side of the Rockies and 40 per cent is over on the other side. I had some concerns, as did some other Reform Party members and members from other parties.

I made my presentation at the hearing. Lo and behold, miraculously the commissioners did listen to my presentation. Subsequently, the commission was disbanded and submitted its final report. I was privy to that report when it came out in November. I found that the committee had listened and had responded appropriately concerning the changes it had previously proposed for the Prince George-Bulkley Valley and the Prince George-Peace River ridings. What had actually happened was that the committee had listened to the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley and myself and left the ridings as they now exist.

It is also appropriate to mention that even with the existing population of British Columbia which is estimated at some 3.3 million, the number of ridings from the 1991 census will be 34 rather than 32. As I am aware, Elections Canada pegs the number at some 96,531 for the average riding size for a population the size of British Columbia.

The riding of Prince George-Peace River as it currently exists would fall under the 15 per cent variance as proposed in the amendment by my colleague. Therefore, even a large rural riding and one of the more difficult to travel around would still qualify under the reduced variance that Reform is proposing. That should be noted.

One other point I would like to make concerns some comments made by the hon. Bloc members. They seem to have some difficulty understanding how Reform on the one hand supports the concept of a triple E Senate and on the other hand speaks against this larger variance. It is very easy for us to understand. I do not know why it is so difficult for them to understand.

It gets back to what we believe is the fundamental principle of democracy in a two house system. The lower house should be represented as closely and as accurately as possible by representation by population, while the upper house should represent the regions in a geographical sense. I do not understand why the hon. members from Quebec find that so difficult to understand.

I note with real concern that amendments put forward by the Bloc suggest that Quebec should somehow always have some traditional right to 25 per cent of the seats in this House. It goes completely contrary to the defeat of the Charlottetown accord.

As Reformers travelled around the country and particularly in western Canada speaking out against the Charlottetown accord during the referendum campaign, one of the concerns we heard from Canadians was that no area should have a right to a set number of seats in this Chamber and that they should be set by population. Who knows what is going to happen in the future? That was the real reason a lot of people voted against the Charlottetown accord.

In closing, I make note of that for the hon. Bloc members. They should remember their history. Remember that one of the reasons people voted against the Charlottetown accord was that they completely discount this opinion by some Quebecers, not all, that somehow they have an inherent right to 25 per cent of the seats in this House.

[Bernard St-Laurent, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore talk about the amendment proposed by the Reform Party to narrow the deviation from the provincial electoral quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. First, I would like to point out that Quebec also voted against the Charlottetown Accord. Obviously for different reasons, but this is probably the only point in history where we agreed. This is just about the only time in the year that the Bloc Quebecois and the Reform Party agreed. It was, nevertheless, for a good cause, basically.

In order to understand what the 25 per cent and the 15 per cent situations represent, we must situate ourselves both geographically and demographically, since our role in the House is not just to represent an area and not just to represent people, but to represent the people in a given area. From these two starting points, we must look at the two elements in the process. There are regions where it is easy to comply with the principle through geographic juggling or playing with certain boundaries and thus relatively easy to move the scale 25 per cent or 15 per cent higher or lower. It is a matter of mathematics.

Clearly mathematics does enter the picture at some point. However, where mathematics takes a back seat is where geography comes into play. There are regions, not only in Quebec, but in Ontario and in the Yukon, where this is not possible. I am sorry, but our role here in the House of Commons is not a static role where we represent people mathematically. We are here to represent people according to the demographics of regional characteristics. Within the process, certain basic elements must be taken into account. I will give you a specific example. Naturally, I will give you the one I know best, that of my riding.

My riding is the third largest riding in the country: 465,000 square kilometres. It is a little more than half the size of Ontario, just to give you an idea of what 465,000 kilometres means. It is not the kind of vast area where people live in 10 square kilometres and the rest is forest. No, there are people living throughout it in its farthest reaches. There is even a place where there are fewer people-at the heart of it. So, reasonably, a member has to take the time to visit the people, and the people also are entitled to see those they voted for, those who represent them, whether they voted for them or not, because they are there to represent them.

Mr. Speaker, 465,000 square kilometres, that is over 82 times the size of Prince Edward Island, which has four MPs. Therefore, if we were to calculate the ratio, there should be 328 MPs for the riding of Manicouagan, which is more than the number of members currently in the House of Commons. If you want to talk math, so will we.

It makes no sense, except that there would be a lot of Bloc Quebecois members. We are losing in all this, but what can I say? It is something we must accept.

Now, back to the debate, because we must not lose sight of any of these issues in the parliamentary process. And when we take into consideration goals that we must strive to attain and, I should add, never give up on, this is stricly in the interests of the good representation of the taxpayers who pay our salaries.

It takes three hours by plane to get to Blanc-Sablon, in the eastern corner of my riding, and if I want to visit other taxpayers in the north end of my riding, I have to first go back to Sept-îles before taking another three hour flight. I have to block off several days, even weeks, if I want to go to Blanc-Sablon. In fact, I had to prepare a schedule when I appeared before the committee.

To really visit everyone in my riding, not in a whirlwind tour, but to actually go to each location and meet an organization, for example the municipal authorities at city hall or the members of a chamber of commerce, it takes three weeks non-stop, with no days off, and that is if weather permits. I must honestly admit that over the last year and a bit, I still have not been able to do a complete tour of my riding because all too often the fog prevents us, slows us down, makes us push back our schedule by a day. Taxpayers nevertheless have the right to meet their elected representatives. And it is the duty of elected representatives to meet taxpayers on their own turf so that they can better understand certain peculiarities, because regional particularities do come into play.

In the north, for example, we find native communities, where hunting and fishing are the main issues. In the southwest, which covers the area from Sept-îles and Port-Cartier up to Franquelin, including Havre-Saint-Pierre, we find mostly mining and logging companies, naturally. Fermont is another mining town a little further to the north.

That is where the road ends. That is another factor to be considered. There is a proposal to amend the variance from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. When the road ends, it does not matter whether it is 15 or 25 per cent. These people have the right to live, to have access to food, to health and public services.

We are talking about quite a different set of logistics just to meet with them. There is no comparison. In this sector, 75 to 80 per cent of the inhabitants live off the fishery. But there is no road. There is only the boat or the plane, and in winter, the snowmobile.

We know what happened recently in Blanc-Sablon. There is a great deal of snow, Mr. Speaker.

In conclusion, we must not take our search for a mathematical formula to extremes. We must continue to be proud of the work we are doing, and proud as well that we are able to improve the

quality of service to these people, because they too have rights and obligations, as do we, their elected representatives. We must not allow a mathematical formula to make a mockery of what we do.

In order to bring it into line, my riding would have to be enlarged by almost half the area of the entire province of Quebec. We would be looking at more than one House of Commons. No. I think that, out of respect for taxpayers, we should stick with figures that take geography and demography into account.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to address two items in connection with the amendment proposed by the Reform Party in relation to setting the variance from quota that would be used for the creation of new riding boundaries in the forthcoming redistribution.

I note, as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has already noted, the 25 per cent maximum variance has already been found to be charter compliant. It is a measuring stick that fits within our charter. At the end of the day it is the charter which governs how our electoral redistributions will take place. That is the foundation on which our democratic rights and privileges are built.

In relation to the actual population numbers I draw to the attention of colleagues the possibility that during this debate some of us are focusing on existing population numbers when we look at the variance from quota that existed over 10 years ago when the boundaries were last redistributed around 1987.

When some members ask whether the current variance in a particular riding of close to 25 per cent is democratic, I point out that a lot of these statistics did not exist 15 years ago. When the boundaries were created 15 years ago many of these ridings were much closer to population quota. Subsequent growth has caused the populations to increase or decrease and depart from the quota. We have to be careful in discussing that because it is not fair to say that because a riding is 23 per cent above quota now that is what would be the case if the electoral boundaries commissions were to reshape the boundary now.

The electoral boundaries commissions will be expected to follow very close to quota when they do their work. That is how they operate. I have been through the process once back in the eighties.

The change to the statute at committee involving the deletion of what was called the schedule was done for some pretty calculated reasons. I know they were good reasons. I debated it at committee. By deleting the schedule we have not rid the ability of particular ridings to continue to exist outside the 25 per cent variance.

However, we have circumscribed fairly precisely the basis on which they could be outside the 25 per cent variance. The circumstance must be extraordinary. I leave the definition of that to the electoral boundaries commissions. The riding must be geographically isolated or not readily accessible to the rest of the province. If the electoral boundaries commission is to permit a riding to exist, not just varying from the quota but outside the 25 per cent variance, they must give cogent reasons.

If some democrats from the Reform Party or the Liberal Party or the Bloc Quebecois believe that being outside the variance does not comply with the charter there can always be access to judicial interpretation.

We have made a reasonable compromise. We have put in place a reasonable mechanism to address what is truly an incredible variety of electoral circumstances in Canada.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already had a few opportunities to speak about the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

With regard to the amendments put forward by the Reform Party, I should explain to the people listening to us that this is not a complex technical matter. The Reform Party is simply asking us to make ridings larger and give greater importance to urban communities and less importance to the other criteria, including territorial settlement, thus affecting our whole vision of Canada's development.

Through seemingly very technical criteria, the amendments put forward by the Reform Party would lead to a very clear choice, namely ensuring that future development is based only on natural population migrations without considering that any region may experience a temporary decline in population and take steps to revitalize the community. The amendments proposed by the Reform Party would only speed up the community's decline and reduce its political representation. It is obvious at this point, I think, that we must make sure this amendment is rejected.

The second amendment, which is aimed at eliminating the possibility of deviating by more than 25 per cent, further increases the imbalance with constitutionally protected ridings. For instance, in Prince Edward Island and a number of other places, certain ridings are protected, and preventing any variance above 25 per cent will only increase the discrepancy between levels of representation.

What kind of an advantage is a riding under constitutional protection given over other ridings in terms of representation? Because this argument of representation is coming up and I think that the rural communities of Western Canada must be surprised indeed at the position the Reform Party is taking today, a position which would make ridings already covering

huge areas extend even further. I find it very odd indeed that the Reform Party should take such a stand.

It also seems to me that, beyond the mathematics of representation, the idea is to ensure that representation is fair and accurate. Fairness is not just a matter of arithmetic. Otherwise, this whole thing could be resolved with a calculator and we would save a great deal of money. But when one riding covers, say, six blocks in Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver while another one encompasses 55 or 60 municipalities, should we not take into account other criteria to ensure that rural and urban ridings are equally represented in this Parliament?

I do not think that anyone here will deny that these circumstances affect how we carry out our duties and that we need different ways to reach out constituents, one being to reduce the number of constituents in all ridings. It was just established that the act already provides sufficient variances to ensure this kind of representation in the future.

We were asked earlier how we, from the Bloc Quebecois, could not share the triple E Senate vision of the Reform Party. It is because a triple E Senate would exacerbate the problem. In a triple E Senate, all provinces would have the same number of representatives. I have nothing against the people of Prince Edward Island, but let us compare the size and population of this province to Ontario, Quebec or British Columbia.

Quite obviously, this is not an adequate solution. In any case, Quebecers had at least 15 other reasons to reject the Charlottetown Accord and this is certainly not the only one which led them to reject that deal. The accord, which was bad for all of Canada, had been cooked up by negotiators behind close doors. Afterwards, we realized that the people they claimed to represent had no intention of agreeing on such a deal, and they massively rejected it, which was a good thing for Quebec and Canada.

As regards the second amendment proposed by the Reform Party, it is important to look at its impact, for example, on the Magdalen Islands, in Quebec.

The Magdalen Islands are a very distinct region of Quebec. My Bloc colleague mentioned that his riding is too large, but there are other specific realities which have already been acknowledged by the federal government, such as being islanders. The distinct riding is gone. However, these constituents can benefit from what I would call a greater open-mindedness, a wider vision in terms of Quebec's development.

In the Quebec Election Act, the Magdalen Islands are deemed to be an exception to the rule of 25 per cent. In fact, they are currently the only exception in the Quebec legislation. Everyone is pleased because we provide specific representation to people who have very specific and distinct problems, as can be seen right now with the fishing debate.

We should ask the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine to tell us about his experience as the member representing the Magdalen Islands, as well Bonaventure. How can he ensure adequate representation for both regions? This is almost impossible.

The member finds himself dealing with chambers of commerce which are unhappy because their interests are not properly looked after. It is not necessarily a matter of individual qualifications but probably far more a question of being able to represent all one's constituents. How can he do his job as a member in Ottawa, as well as representing Bonaventure and a district 500 kilometres away, surrounded by the sea?

I think that if the Government of Canada wanted to show that it understands the particular needs of regional development and especially this region, it would accept the proposal presented by the Bloc. At the very least we must defeat the amendments proposed by the Reform Party which would preclude any flexibility in this respect. I think we have to send a message to that effect.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to a question I was asked in committee, a question I felt was particularly insulting to the people in my area. The hon. member from Kindersley-Lloydminster asked me whether it was to protect the electoral districts consisting of 100 per cent, "pure laine", French Canadians, as he put it, that I was telling them to protect the five counties in Eastern Quebec.

At this point, I had to give him a history lesson, because he was unaware of the fact that in addition to francophone communities there were also anglophone communities that were established long ago, at the time the Loyalists left the United States to settle in the Gaspé.

There are also aboriginal communities in these ridings which would like proper representation. So our intervention was not to protect the French Canadians in this area but to ensure that all citizens enjoy adequate representation.

I think this is symptomatic of the contempt in which the Reform Party holds members of this House and the role they have to play. I do not think anyone in this House makes representations to ensure he will be re-elected. In any case, changes are so unpredictable.

If during the last election, the Conservatives had done everything they could to protect themselves, instead of two members they might have had four or five, but basically, the result would have been the same. I do not think members make proposals to protect their ridings but to ensure that citizens are satisfactorily represented.

So, I believe it is important that all groups in our society, all individuals, but also the type of communities that they form--

Native, English, French and other communities in Canada-have an adequate representation, and it is certainly not by applying the two amendments moved by the Reform Party that we will achieve this result.

So, it is important to reject these two amendments in order to ensure that the federal distribution map, if it needs to be used again in the future-I personally hope that we will never need it again-because, if there is a conclusion that we come to beyond the issue of the distribution map, it is the fact that double representation, with federal and provincial members of Parliament, is confusing to people. They do not know who is responsible for what any more. It would be very important to change this situation.

If I were a federalist, I would say: "Let us clarify in the Constitution the roles of everyone so that we do not trip over the same responsibilities". But as a sovereignist, and because of my own experience over the past 30 years, I believe that the solution is obviously for Quebec to achieve sovereignty.

But, in order to respect Quebecers' right to representation, and also because we were elected not only to promote the cause of sovereignty, but to defend Quebec's interests, I think it is important that we pass legislation that will allow for the best possible representation of all voters in Canada-in my particular case, those of Quebec-and therefore I hope that these amendments will be rejected so that we can ensure proper representation for all the people who deserve it, for all citizens of Quebec and Canada.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?